[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Sat Mar 23 02:43:15 CET 2019
It would be a much needed thing if ripe legal were to chime in here so that they can issue an opinion on the proposal. This amateur theorizing isn't getting the discussion anywhere. --srs ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg at c4inet.net> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 5:07 AM To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 05:13:20PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: >The aim of the 2019-03 proposal, as far as I understand it, is to >grant the RIPE NCC the authority to make formal judgements about >alleged abuse of network resources with the implicit intention that >unless the party involved ends the alleged abuse, the RIPE NCC would >enforce the judgement by LIR shutdown if the alleged infringer were a >member, or refusal to provide service if the alleged infringer were >not. It is actually worse than this, as I understand it. Based on recent contributions in this discussion, I now understand that it is proposed to make the determination of "network abuse" entirely outside the NCC and then to give this determination to the NCC Board to rubber-stamp and enforce it (and, implicitly assume the legal liability, one would presume) >There are other pile of other considerations here, not least whether >the RIPE NCC would have any legal jurisdiction to deregister resources >where it had determined "abuse", and what the legal liability of the >company would be if it were determined that they didn't have >jurisdiction to act. I am also somewhat worried about the possible fall-out for the members if the NCC were to be found to have acted incorrectly and be liable for the damages to the business of a member that was shut down... I would be very interested in NCC Legal's opinion on this. >But, this is not how to handle the problem of BGP hijacking. Even if it >had the slightest possibility of making any difference at a technical >level (which it won't), the proposal would set the RIPE Community and >the RIPE NCC down a road which I believe would be extremely unwise to >take from a legal and political point of view, and which would be >difficult, if not impossible to manoeuver out of. Much better put than I could hope to do, I fully endorse this statement. rgds, SL >Nick > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190323/c92bd348/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]